Here's the thing. Sacks are like WR's. They are important facets in any game, but are NEVER the main reason that determines winning or losing.
I call it the "individualization of football". While football still remains the ultimate team game, for the last few decades it has been marketed to us as a game of individuals. Brady, vs Manning, instead of the Pats vs the Colts.
WR's are the epitome of this individualization of the game. Even before the rule changes that brought us a flag football version of the pro game, WR's have long been the most replaceable of players.
The Pats have been successful for DECADES despite rarely spending for elite WR's when having "merely" good ones have successfully sufficed.
All you have to do is look at the Jags vs the Pats. Who has the most "star" players. It's not even close. Which is the better TEAM.....and it's not even close.
All that being said, I think Bill underestimates the value of the sack, just a bit. I'm guessing here, but I would think that if a team gets their QB sacked, they are FAR more likely to have to punt the ball after that sack.
And that being said (
), I'm guessing that picking up first downs on long yardage plays in THIS offensive environment is a LOT easier than it was just a decade ago.